.jpg)
History of 7a-66 Removal Proceedings in North Carolina
Per the UNC school of Government article entitled "Removal of Court Officials" by Michael Crowell:
"Case Law The following cases provide guidance in the removal of the district attorney:
In re Spivey, 345 N.C. 404 (1997). The district attorney was removed from office for using a racial epithet while drunk at a bar. Among the court’s holdings were the following: • The constitution gives the General Assembly the authority to set the procedure for removal of a district attorney. A district attorney is not subject to removal by impeachment. • The racial epithet used by the DA amounted to fighting words which are not subject to First Amendment protection and thus may be the basis for removal. • The trial court may appoint a lawyer to prosecute the removal of the DA. Independent counsel is necessary to afford due process, to avoid the judge having to both present and decide the case. • The removal proceeding is an inquiry; it is neither a civil suit nor a criminal prosecution.
In re Cline, ___ N.C. App. ___, 749 S.E.2d 91 (2013). The district attorney was removed from office for statements she made about the senior resident superior court judge that falsely accused the judge of corruption, those statements bringing the office of DA into disrepute. The Court of Appeals upheld the removal and its holdings included the following: • The thirty-day time limit in the statute for holding the removal hearing is mandatory. • The DA is not entitled to discovery (but the trial court’s limitation of the scope of the inquiry enabled her to prepare adequately). • Some of the DA’s statements were protected by First Amendment free speech rights, and the DA had qualified immunity for some, but statements made with malice were not protected, and some statements were not subject to qualified immunity."
In re Spivey, 345 N.C. 404 (1997). The district attorney was removed from office for using a racial epithet while drunk at a bar. Among the court’s holdings were the following: • The constitution gives the General Assembly the authority to set the procedure for removal of a district attorney. A district attorney is not subject to removal by impeachment. • The racial epithet used by the DA amounted to fighting words which are not subject to First Amendment protection and thus may be the basis for removal. • The trial court may appoint a lawyer to prosecute the removal of the DA. Independent counsel is necessary to afford due process, to avoid the judge having to both present and decide the case. • The removal proceeding is an inquiry; it is neither a civil suit nor a criminal prosecution.
In re Cline, ___ N.C. App. ___, 749 S.E.2d 91 (2013). The district attorney was removed from office for statements she made about the senior resident superior court judge that falsely accused the judge of corruption, those statements bringing the office of DA into disrepute. The Court of Appeals upheld the removal and its holdings included the following: • The thirty-day time limit in the statute for holding the removal hearing is mandatory. • The DA is not entitled to discovery (but the trial court’s limitation of the scope of the inquiry enabled her to prepare adequately). • Some of the DA’s statements were protected by First Amendment free speech rights, and the DA had qualified immunity for some, but statements made with malice were not protected, and some statements were not subject to qualified immunity."
In re Cline, ___ N.C. App. ___, 749 S.E.2d 91 (2013). The district attorney was removed from office for statements she made about the senior resident superior court judge that falsely accused the judge of corruption, those statements bringing the office of DA into disrepute. The Court of Appeals upheld the removal and its holdings included the following: • The thirty-day time limit in the statute for holding the removal hearing is mandatory. • The DA is not entitled to discovery (but the trial court’s limitation of the scope of the inquiry enabled her to prepare adequately). • Some of the DA’s statements were protected by First Amendment free speech rights, and the DA had qualified immunity for some, but statements made with malice were not protected, and some statements were not subject to qualified immunity."
This information above is sourced from:
Per one of the fileds 7A-66 affidavits regarding the removal of DA Jeffrey Cruden:
20. “Prior cases of 7a-66 removal proceedings have removed DA’s in North Carolina for similar issues. DA Cline was removed in 2012 for making false statements about a sitting judge. DA Spivey was removed in 1995 for making derogatory statements about a patron at a bar while off duty. In 2021, DA Newman was removed after violating Marsy’s Law with respect to victim rights.
21. Therefore, DA Jefferey Cruden’s actions in distributing publicly false statements of fact about a victim of a sexual assault would qualify DA Cruden from removal from office for such behavior.
22. In the past, DA Spivey was removed from office for a single incident of making highly offensive comments while off duty to a patron at a bar. Thus, multiple instances of sending out false, defamatory, hurtful statements about a victim of sexual assault which violates a known ethical code of conduct while on duty should definitely qualify for removal.”
21. Therefore, DA Jefferey Cruden’s actions in distributing publicly false statements of fact about a victim of a sexual assault would qualify DA Cruden from removal from office for such behavior.
22. In the past, DA Spivey was removed from office for a single incident of making highly offensive comments while off duty to a patron at a bar. Thus, multiple instances of sending out false, defamatory, hurtful statements about a victim of sexual assault which violates a known ethical code of conduct while on duty should definitely qualify for removal.”
If you were also told things about Survivor X (AKA Melissa Nicholson) that were not true and would like to submit an affidavit,
Or if you know of other reasons DA Cruden should be removed from office that qualify fo a 7A-66 removal.
Listed below are links to articles and case law surrounding the other 3 removal proceedings of District Attorney’s in North Carolina: